Recently, my school participated in PISA and I had the opportunity to attempt a diagnostic test. What I found was formulas and even calculators were allowed while giving the test – it was quite different from any school paper I have seen. But as I have been giving CFPQ papers from a year now, it didn't feel different to have open-ended questions not just based on directly writing the principle down but to actually write the depth and reasoning behind the principle, especially in science.

But when I went on a deeper dive, I found something shocking: India participated in the 2009 round of testing but pulled out of the 2012 PISA testing, with the Indian government attributing its action to the unfairness of PISA testing to Indian students. India had ranked 72nd out of 73 countries tested in 2009. The ministry concluded that there was a "socio-cultural disconnect" between the questions and Indian students, citing the need to factor in India's "socio-cultural milieu." The ministry noted examples like questions mentioning avocado instead of a familiar fruit like mango, or knowledge about electric cars.

India did not participate in the 2012, 2015, and 2018 PISA rounds. Although recommendations were made to rejoin, and in 2017 the Ministry decided to end the boycott and participate from 2020, India again did not participate in the 2022 PISA rounds, citing COVID-19 pandemic disruption.

So basically, India pulled out of the test... because we were last.

This almost looks so contradicting in a country like India where parents would rather keep their children grounded for 18 to 20 years so they can crack a test (won't get a seat though – not enough colleges in India). In such an education-focused country mentally, we have, we struggle to get in the top 10? The clear analytics given by the Indian government was the unfamiliarity with questions like avocado not being known by students or knowledge about electric cars.

Are we not ready for the international level?

But here's what makes this even more complex. Now CBSE has started pushing Competency-Focused Questions (CFPQs). Unlike traditional "state the principle" or "define the term" types, CFPQs ask us to apply concepts, connect ideas, and show reasoning. I've been practicing these for over a year, so the format feels natural to me – but I can see how tough the transition might be for many students who have been trained in rote learning.

And CBSE's new push of CFPQs is justified. The world is changing, and if rote is the key, AI is already there. The edge of humanity has been reasoning, and while countries like Singapore have been focusing on reasoning from the inception of their study system, our country has decided to choose it after a long delay.

But here's the contradiction I can't wrap my head around:

On one hand, we are being told to move beyond rote learning and embrace reasoning. On the other hand, core scientific ideas are being removed, delayed, or diluted from our textbooks:

• Scientists opposed NCERT's removal of Darwin's theory of evolution

• NCERT moved the periodic table and evolution to higher classes

• Vaimānika Śāstra – debunked by IISc scientists – yet still discussed at official forums

• Ancient aircraft claims made at Indian Science Congress 2015

• NCERT's Chandrayaan-3 module criticized for pseudoscience

• History and science content deletions in NCERT textbooks

CBSE has been making changes to paper formats, and though these changes make things ultimately harder for us, there is a reality students need to understand: the sooner the world is going to change, and if rote is the key, AI is there.

But I don't understand the logic of removing things to say we are easing it for students, then asking about it later in boards.

From Grade 1 to the time we pass out, we are given emphasis on boards as that one metric that seems like a pathway to our career. So CBSE has been making changes on those paper formats. Well, though these changes make things ultimately harder for us, there is a reality students need to understand better: the world is going to change, and if rote is the key, AI is already there.

At least if you want to make it easy, clearly define what you want, or help us understand what you want. If that's the way to go, I don't understand the logic of removing things to say we are easing for students, then later asking in boards. At least if you want to make it easy, clearly define what you want or help us understand what you want.

Looking at the data that shows we're not ready:

Recent surveys reveal concerning trends. ASER data shows that by Class 7, nearly 40% of students still can't read a Class 2-level text, more than 60% can't do basic division, and three-fourths can't subtract – a Grade 3 skill. These are sobering figures when considering what PISA demands: interpreting complex texts, drawing inferences, evaluating arguments, and applying reasoning to unfamiliar problems.

NAS data shows declining performance in higher grades, with Class 10 science scores dropping 45 points and math falling 34 points between 2017-2021. These are the very subjects PISA evaluates core competencies in.

The reality we face:

So even after so much pressure on the so-called great education system we have, we struggle to even stand on a competitive level, just to get replaced by a 10M token model done by AI effectively.

Countries like Singapore built their systems around reasoning and application principles from the start. India is only now moving in that direction – but inconsistently. We're asking students to suddenly adapt to reasoning-based questions while simultaneously reducing the content foundation they need to reason about.

From a student's perspective, here's what we need:

If we want to truly prepare students for the future, then let's be clear and consistent:

• Either reduce content and keep it reduced, or teach rigorously and assess reasoning early, not suddenly

• Don't remove science and history only to bring it back later when we have less time to master it

• If reasoning and application are the future, then give us space and time to practice them early

• Stop confusing us with changing content midstream while expecting us to perform on international standards

Because in the end, the future won't reward those who can cram the fastest. It will reward those who can think the deepest.

The edge of humanity isn't in cramming formulas. It's in the thinking behind them.

P.S. I'm not a certified educational research analyst - this is just what I observed while looking into the test. Would love to know what you think.